Punjab and Haryana High Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on lawyer for concealing facts in bail plea

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a lawyer for concealing material facts while seeking bail a second time for his client in a murder case. [Gulab Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another].Justice Sandeep Moudgil found that the lawyer had not made any mention of an undertaking given to the High Court that his client would surrender before the trial court. The accused client had also sought liberty to comply with such an undertaking while withdrawing his first bail plea. .As such, the Court called the second petition for anticipatory bail a “mischievous, malicious and contemptuous act”. It asserted that the law would come to the rescue of only those who come to Court with clean hands..The accused, Gulab Singh had approached the Court for anticipatory bail in a case registered in 2021 at Haryana's Karnal district. In response to the Court’s query about the maintainability of a second bail plea, his counsel submitted that second anticipatory bail applications of two other co-accused were entertained by a co-ordinate bench and that interim protection was also granted to them.The counsel representing the State, however, revealed before the Court that the petitioner had omitted to annex an earlier High Court order in which his undertaking to surrender before the authorities was recorded..After perusing the record, the Court found that the accused had only made a reference to the withdrawal of his first bail application due to a pendency of a criminal revision plea, in which the proceedings before the trial court had been stayed.The Court noted that the first bail plea was withdrawn only after the petitioners sought liberty to comply with an earlier undertaking to surrender before the trial court. This was not mentioned in the latest bail plea. Observing that a glaring attempt had been made to mislead the court, Justice Moudgil said,“I am of the considered view that the second anticipatory bail application is not maintainable and the petition not only deserves dismissal of the same but exemplary costs needs to be imposed so that no one could dare to take the Courts for a ride.”.Accordingly, the Court asked the lawyer representing the petitioner to deposit ₹1 lakh with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund.Advocate Prashant Bansal represented the petitioner (bail applicant). Additional Advocate General Sandeep Singh Mann represented the State. Advocate Rahul Deswal represented a private respondent..[Read Order]